Log in

No account? Create an account

Mon, Mar. 20th, 2006, 01:40 pm
paranoiaebw: kind of a interesting

This is kind of connected with what I was talking about earlier in the day:

Q. I must take issue with your response to Jay Leno's question about whether Hollywood is out of step with the mainstream public. Your response was, "Maybe the moviegoing public is out of step with good movies." How incredibly insulting and arrogant! Your comment illustrates an obvious belief on your part that the people involved with financing, writing, directing and acting in films -- most of whom live in the unnatural and aesthetic environments of Hollywood and other cloistered situations -- know better than I and the rest of the public what WE want and need in entertainment! Many of us are TIRED of the continual diet of political, environmental and societal issues forced upon us by today's moviemakers. The overwhelming and continual box-office success of the lighter fare vs. the others proves my point.

Donna Larson, Princeton, Minn.

A. No, I think it proves my point. These 2006 films "won" their weekends or placed second: "Hostel," "Underworld: Evolution," "Big Mamma's House 2," "When a Stranger Calls," "Madea's Family Reunion," "The Hills Have Eyes," "Ultraviolet" and "Date Movie." Only three of these, by the way, were "lighter fare," unless vivisection and evisceration make you smile. During the same weeks, these films were not embraced at the box office: "The Matador," "Cache," "The New World," "Transamerica," "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada," "Tristram Shandy" and "Tsosti." If I prefer the films on the second list, does that make me arrogant? Moviegoers "tired of the continual diet of political, environmental and societal issues" are finding lots of films that entertain them, and those of us who prefer more challenging films have to look a little harder.

Here's some insight from Daniel R. Huron, of Texas City, Texas: "I was reading a review of 'Syriana' from Reuters but I stopped reading, not because I was offended by their opinion, but because the reviewer insisted on commenting on its box-office potential. According to the reviewer, the film was unlikely to connect with the 'under-25,' 'mainstream audience' because it is so 'dialogue heavy.' My feeling is, who cares? Shouldn't a reviewer critique the film for what it is and not for its potential to make money?"

Taken from this weeks "Movie Answer Man" on RogerEbert.com-http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN
(Deleted comment)

Sun, May. 21st, 2006 10:43 pm (UTC)

Yes we do live in a world with problems. The other thing to notice is that less and less people seem to go to the movies. Only recently the guardian in the UK had an article about the way that more and more talented people were writing for TV- west wing, sopranos etc. Its weird that dialogue laden films from the forties were really popular back then, whereas the shootem ups of today have lost their audience. It strikes me that some of the films you talk about in your post are too confessedly arthouse- screen in arts cinemas etc and we need to change the distribution networks. Personally I think more people would go to them with more advertising etc.